Traditionally in an debate, it is your responsibility to convince the other side of your view. You can't just get the other side to make your argument for you.

??? There is no "point" to lobbyists, its literally a guy paying to play. Take any industry expert from any industry and unless they themselves are a lobbyist I can near guarantee they would be happier if lobbying was illegal with very harsh punishment

I suppose you mean professional lobbying, with the purpose of influencing laws to make money?

Because when a environmental group tries to block some dirty mining project for example, than this is also lobbying. It is just people using influence. You cannot really make that illegal.

You can force the parties involved for transparency and punish bribery, but you cannot make it illegal for people to talk to politicians.

Even when it is done "professional". The problem in reality is, that when you look closely, in effect lots of lobbying is indeed bribery. (most of the indirect kind, like informal promising lucrative jobs after their terms are over, or giving overpaid talks). And that is and remains illegal.

The fact is without the non-corrupt side of lobbying, the lawyers whom make up most of the legislature wouldn't have the first clue how their legislation interacts with complex industry specific real world systems.

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." (a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls)

"Don't be snarky."

"Edit out swipes."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: we've been having to ask you this kind of thing for many years:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32603262 (Aug 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27070806 (May 2021)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20055249 (May 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19391113 (March 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16538476 (March 2018)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15859440 (Dec 2017)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14274043 (May 2017)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12003094 (June 2016)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8796661 (Dec 2014)

That's not cool. Can you please fix this?

Lobbying for money is a form of legalized corruption, almost identical in form and function to the illegal one, except it's available just to those who already have a lot of money and power, hence coming only with rewards.

If I donate money to the EFF or Louis Rossmann for a cause I care about, that should not block him from lobbying on my behalf.

Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like. That’s hardly shocking.

I think you picked the laziest understanding of both the issue and my answer, and made my point in the process.

I'm not talking about you paying someone to represent your ideas to lawmakers, regulators, judges, etc. but about paying those people to directly enact your interests. The latter is what happens in effect, even if the incentives move from the interest groups to the key people through so many lobbying laundromats that they look completely clean and disconnected. And straight up buying laws or legal decisions is just the first problem.

The second is that as you confirm, real representation in democracy is not with your vote but your donation power. Even when your chosen lobbyist isn't buying anything straight out, just having a voice and representation takes money. The EFF or Louis Rossmann have to struggle so much to be heard is that other people pay more to be louder. If you have problems being heard for money, imagine the people hoping to be heard for free.

Poor people can only spend one vote every few years to choose representation, rich people can spend a lot of money to hijack that representation at all times and either make their voice heard above all else, or just purchase exactly what they want. Everyone praises professional lobbying as long as they are in that position to bribe.

Congress can simply bring people to testify in the open instead of cowering in the shadows like they do now.

“Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face contact in cooperation with support staff that may not meet directly face-to-face, is done by many types of people, associations and organized groups, including individuals on a personal level in their capacity as private citizens, it is also practiced by corporations in the private sector serving their own interests, by non-profits and non-governmental organizations in the voluntary sector, by fellow legislators or government officials influencing each other through legislative affairs (legislative assistance) in the public sector, and by advocacy groups (interest groups).”

> is the act of lawfully

Many laws are a product of the time they were written and in turn, a product of the people who have written them. Why is lobbying legal in the USA? Why is it coded in law? These are genuine questions that people can and should ask.

The idea that lobbyists are ‘the man’ corruptly influencing bent politicians is tiresome and to paint it as the truth is not productive. If you want to stop lobbying vote for politicians that want to stop it or run for office yourself. However once you are in office you might note why it exists, as did many before you.

I mean to me the big issue is that these are laws that corrupt democracy (in the sense that they benefit the few powerful over the many powerless). And your solution of "just vote them out" is not really feasible because both democrats and Republicans (the only two realistic options you have given the electoral system) are pro lobbying!

But is the general population in favour of lobbying? I don't know but I don't think so.

I personally advocate for a new way of doing politics altogether. As I don't think the current system really works well to properly channel the will of the majority of the people in responsible ways.

And lobbying is much, much stricter in pretty much every other country in the world. So the US is an outlier here.

You appear to have strong ideas about politics. Arguing on forums gets them nowhere, you can either preach to the choir or try to convince people who will never change their mind. If you want to change things, get involved in the political process yourself.

Which is also usually driven by financial interests under cover of virtue. It is most obvious in Europe where many people now have become multi millionaires, largely of government imposed enrichment schemes.

Can you cite concrete examples?

This is probably how corruption takes over a society. Something I thought I’d only ever read in history books, but now I have the privilege of living through it. Oh joy.

I wish we had a better example to show to the world.

Like SuperPAC's and all that bullshit

Edit: I see your point wrt alternative bribery schemes existing, and isn't the solution perhaps for those schemes to also be shut down, instead of allowing it because some good might come of it?

Hmmmm, it's difficult not to assume you are yourself a lobbyist or politician if you take this position, given that the coffers of those with ill intent are vastly more lined than the alternative...

Well, it probably is difficult if one is not very good at thinking.

Regarding your edit, sure, but that's not the content of the post I replied to. That was about banning lobbying and I'm making the point that consequences of that could be counterproductive and make for an even less level playing field.

We need something better than this fake democracy we inherited.

Voting lawmaker who don’t know the subject don’t help

If you run a small solar company, it is in your best interest to support SEIA, the member association (lobbyist) for the solar industry.

You might think the system is dumb, and it is, but if you don’t understand why it exists, you can’t design a replacement.

Lawmakers and their teams legislate on topics that they are far from experts in, so they regularly need to consult with experts. Those experts, no matter how you select them, will harbor biases.

How do you get the relevant expertise to the lawmakers? I’ve talked to a chief of staff for a senator and at that level it is a lot of responding to what is next on the agenda, and less deciding.

Same reason you talk to your representative on the regular so that your position is known. It's why you hired someone to represent you, after all. As before, the person you hired is not a mind reader. You have to talk to him. Like any employer, if you don't keep in regular touch with your employees they are not going to do the job you expect of them.

Whatever they are they should be representing the people first. If that involves learning more about whatever they're in charge of, then they should do that, since that's what we pay them to do. Plato said our kings should be philosophers, but what we have are sophists.

Right?

Poor analogy.